Grading of age-related maculopathy for epidemiological studies: Is digital imaging as good as 35-mm film?

Ophthalmology

Volumn 110, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 1540-1544

  Van Leeuwen, Redmer ^a   Chakravarthy, Usha ^b   Vingerling, Johannes R ^a   Brussee, Corina ^a   Hooghart, Ada J ^a   Mulder, Paul G ^a   De Jong, Paulus T V M ^a,c,d  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^c NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR NEUROSCIENCE   (Netherlands)

^d ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAMERA; DEVICE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; DRUSEN; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OPHTHALMOSCOPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RETINA MACULA AGE RELATED DEGENERATION; RETINA NEOVASCULARIZATION;

EID: 0042029470     PISSN: 01616420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0161-6420(03)00501-3     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. The International ARM Epidemiological Study Group, Bird AC, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, et al. An international classification and grading system for age-related maculopathy and age-related macular degeneration. Surv Ophthalmol 1995;39:367-74.
2. Klein R, Davis MD, Magli YL, et al. The Wisconsin age-related maculopathy grading system. Ophthalmology 1991;98: 1128-34.
3. George LD, Halliwell M, Hill R, et al. A comparison of digital retinal images and 35 mm colour transparencies in detecting and grading diabetic retinopathy. Diabet Med 1998;15:250-3.
4. Henricsson M, Karlsson C, Ekholm L, et al. Colour slides or digital photography in diabetes screening - a comparison. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2000;78:164-8.
5. Liesenfeld B, Kohner E, Piehlmeier W, et al. A telemedical approach to the screening of diabetic retinopathy: digital fundus photography. Diabetes Care 2000;23:345-8.
6. Lim JI, LaBree L, Nichols T, Cardenas I. A comparison of digital nonmydriatic fundus imaging with standard 35-millimeter slides for diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology 2000; 107:866-70.
7. Rudnisky CJ, Hinz BJ, Tennant MT, et al. High-resolution stereoscopic digital fundus photography versus contact lens biomicroscopy for the detection of clinically significant macular edema. Ophthalmology 2002;109:267-74.
8. Bursell SE, Cavallerano JD, Cavallerano AA, et al. Stereo nonmydriatic digital-video color retinal imaging compared with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study seven standard field 35-mm stereo color photos for determining level of diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology 2001;108:572-85.
9. Klaver CC, Assink JJ, van Leeuwen R, et al. Incidence and progression rates of age-related maculopathy: the Rotterdam Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:2237-41.
10. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research, 1st ed. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991:403-9.
11. Bressler NM, Bressler SB, West SK, et al. The grading and prevalence of macular degeneration in Chesapeake Bay watermen. Arch Ophthalmol 1989;107:847-52.
12. Mitchell P, Smith W, Attebo K, Wang JJ. Prevalence of age-related maculopathy in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1995;102:1450-60.
13. Ishiko S, Akiba J, Horikawa Y, Yoshida A. Detection of drusen in the fellow eye of Japanese Patients with age-related macular degeneration using scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Ophthalmology 2002;109:2165-9.